If I choose to take a summer internship or apprenticeship making 2USD/hr, far less than what you'd consider a "living wage" I'm sure, who are you to stand in my way and deny me that opportunity? On a side not, have you been to China?

Internships are a different story. I am not an expert on minimum wage law, but I do not think that internships are included in the law, and if they are they shouldn't be. This isn't about me telling you personally what I think is best for you...this is about trying to protect the living status of working families. I think ideally (in the capitalist system) that the minimum wage should just be a legally backed guarantee. I don't think it should be a crime to want to be underpaid/exploited, but that's not usually the problem. There are also problems of stores such as Wal-Mart forcing their employees to do unpaid overtime even though the rest of the time they are being paid minimum wage. This not about me or anyone else concerned about exploitation being a control freak, this is about fighting a legitimate problem of impoverished living conditions here and especially abroad.

I have not been to China.

Well the problem is you're trying to decide "how things should be" for everyone else. Perhaps your idea of a "living wage" is insufficient for some, yet more than enough for others. Additionally, you'll have to constantly be making loopholes and exceptions for internships, for people working part-time, for those who are doing it just for the lolz, or who just want to feel productive. This centrally planned, one-size-fits-all method is unjust, inefficient, and very inflexible.

I have been to China, and what I saw was tons of new construction, the capital stock being built up, happy people busy with the fervor of creating new products and services. I saw one city with a number of 20+ story buildings which had not existed five years ago, and everywhere the prosperity seems to be growing. In many ways, their economic situation is better than that of first world countries where it's getting more and more difficult to actually find a job, and students are graduating with a mortgage worth of student loans.

If you want to establish a community where all the employers agree to pay at least $x/hr for work, then by all means go ahead. I think your rate of prosperity growth will drastically lag behind those who do not impose these kinds of restrictions, but hey, prove me wrong. All I ask is that you don't force me to be a part of this community.

Making a law that says everyone must have a 5 million euro house doesn't mean everyone gets a 5 million euro house.

uhhh, you do realize China is not a good example here since they are literally building empty skyscrapers and maintaining gigantic empty malls right? It is like a simulacrum of progress. Besides the fact that China in many ways represents the worst aspects of centralized authoritarian tendencies now tied to the most destructive aspects of capitalism.

China is essentially in the middle of a wild speculative bubble financed with unpayable US debt and collapsing all phases of corporate capitalism - from the wild west, to industrialization and robber barons, to financial ponzi schemes in one strange pyrotechnic orgy of unsustainable growth - though not so unsustainable that they won't be able to knock the US out of its economic supremacy role rather soon

Well the problem is you're trying to decide "how things should be" for everyone else. Perhaps your idea of a "living wage" is insufficient for some, yet more than enough for others. Additionally, you'll have to constantly be making loopholes and exceptions for internships, for people working part-time, for those who are doing it just for the lolz, or who just want to feel productive. This centrally planned, one-size-fits-all method is unjust, inefficient, and very inflexible.

I have been to China, and what I saw was tons of new construction, the capital stock being built up, happy people busy with the fervor of creating new products and services. I saw one city with a number of 20+ story buildings which had not existed five years ago, and everywhere the prosperity seems to be growing. In many ways, their economic situation is better than that of first world countries where it's getting more and more difficult to actually find a job, and students are graduating with a mortgage worth of student loans.

If you want to establish a community where all the employers agree to pay at least $x/hr for work, then by all means go ahead. I think your rate of prosperity growth will drastically lag behind those who do not impose these kinds of restrictions, but hey, prove me wrong. All I ask is that you don't force me to be a part of this community.

Making a law that says everyone must have a 5 million euro house doesn't mean everyone gets a 5 million euro house.

I agree with everything you said in bold. It's very much flawed, and it is a central decision (other than States can add their own minimum wage) which I am ultimately against. Even still, I believe it is worth the flaws. At this point my view will probably come across as ignorance to you, but I truly believe it does more than enough good in the protection of real, struggling families to make up for the people "who are doing it just for the lolz." Like I've said at least twice on this thread, this is not my ideal. In a society with co-operatives, a minimum wage is not necessary.

I have more things to say about China, but the post above me will suffice for now.

Why don't we cut to the chase and just take the next Free Market step and instead of "killing the minimum wage" we kill people that are unemployed? After all they are not unemployed due to a boom and bust cycle brought to you by Wall St and fueled by their buddies in the Federal Reserve they are unemployed because they are lazy and worthless parasites.

So unemployment will be punishable by death. This is so simple a solution that I'm shocked that nobody is proposing it.

Ok since I've solved this world problem onto the next topic.

I'll keep my politics out of your economics if you keep your economics out of my politics.

There are also problems of stores such as Wal-Mart forcing their employees to do unpaid overtime even though the rest of the time they are being paid minimum wage.

When I was a younger man, and new to the union world, I used to eat this crap up. Then my wife applied for a job there, just to piss me off. She had a BS in Biology at the time and even with the low wages (not minimum, BTW) for a cashier; to this day she will tell you that it was the best job she has ever had. She worked at Wal-Mart for four years as a cashier, for a Vet clinic for seven years as a vet assistant, and five years at Proctor & Gamble as a lab tech in their microbiology lab testing the anti-microbial effects of both P&G products as well as competitors. The stories that she would tell me honestly shocked me. Wal-Mart would go out of their way to improve the lives of their 'associates' in ways that I've never even heard of another employer doing. For example, what my wife earned wouldn't have supported a single mother, and there were several that worked as cashiers at the Wal-Mart that she worked at. The corporate office would sponser 'meetings' with the part-time & low wage employees to inform them of state and federal grants & programs that they might be eligible for, and would provide for the forms and some legal help to apply. This is exactly why there are twice as many working poor who receive state and federal benefits such as welfare or food stamps at Wal-Mart than Target or KMart. Granted, that might cost Wal-Mart next to nothing to help apply, rather than just raise their wages, but it's not something that they have to do, and even informing someone that external help might be available is more than half the trouble.

They would do other, less noble, things as well for their 'associates', such as have regular 'pep rallies' to improve moral. As well as a (voluntary) daily exercise routine, intended to stretch out the legs of those who stand all day for a living, preventing chronic stress health problems later. And no, they didn't save enough from the health care plan doing this to pay for the costs of having the manager and 20+ employees do this for 7 minutes each start of shift.

They also provided for a discount for direct family members, and a card for said family members. Lots of retail chains give the employee a token discount during and after their shift, but who gives the spouse a discount card for 10% discount on everything in the store, all of the time and honors coupons and sales while doing so? The only thing that I bought there in those four years that was not covered by that discount card was milk. But baby formula was.

So anymore I tend to get a bit sideways when I see tis kind of anti Wal-MArt propoganda being presented without citations as if they were commonly accepted facts. I've been a member of a union for nigh on 20 years now, and Wal-Mart has done more for my family than you can ever know; and that goes beyond what Wal-Mart does for everyone by the simple act of trying to sell everything that they can cheaper than anyone else.

Don't get me started on their optional health plans. They were great. The only fault that I could find with them, if it can be called a fault, is that they exposed the actual costs of health care to the associate, and then gave them the option of not buying in.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

There are also problems of stores such as Wal-Mart forcing their employees to do unpaid overtime even though the rest of the time they are being paid minimum wage.

When I was a younger man, and new to the union world, I used to eat this crap up. Then my wife applied for a job there, just to piss me off. She had a BS in Biology at the time and even with the low wages (not minimum, BTW) for a cashier; to this day she will tell you that it was the best job she has ever had. She worked at Wal-Mart for four years as a cashier, for a Vet clinic for seven years as a vet assistant, and five years at Proctor & Gamble as a lab tech in their microbiology lab testing the anti-microbial effects of both P&G products as well as competitors. The stories that she would tell me honestly shocked me. Wal-Mart would go out of their way to improve the lives of their 'associates' in ways that I've never even heard of another employer doing. For example, what my wife earned wouldn't have supported a single mother, and there were several that worked as cashiers at the Wal-Mart that she worked at. The corporate office would sponser 'meetings' with the part-time & low wage employees to inform them of state and federal grants & programs that they might be eligible for, and would provide for the forms and some legal help to apply. This is exactly why there are twice as many working poor who receive state and federal benefits such as welfare or food stamps at Wal-Mart than Target or KMart. Granted, that might cost Wal-Mart next to nothing to help apply, rather than just raise their wages, but it's not something that they have to do, and even informing someone that external help might be available is more than half the trouble.

They would do other, less noble, things as well for their 'associates', such as have regular 'pep rallies' to improve moral. As well as a (voluntary) daily exercise routine, intended to stretch out the legs of those who stand all day for a living, preventing chronic stress health problems later. And no, they didn't save enough from the health care plan doing this to pay for the costs of having the manager and 20+ employees do this for 7 minutes each start of shift.

They also provided for a discount for direct family members, and a card for said family members. Lots of retail chains give the employee a token discount during and after their shift, but who gives the spouse a discount card for 10% discount on everything in the store, all of the time and honors coupons and sales while doing so? The only thing that I bought there in those four years that was not covered by that discount card was milk. But baby formula was.

So anymore I tend to get a bit sideways when I see tis kind of anti Wal-MArt propoganda being presented without citations as if they were commonly accepted facts. I've been a member of a union for nigh on 20 years now, and Wal-Mart has done more for my family than you can ever know; and that goes beyond what Wal-Mart does for everyone by the simple act of trying to sell everything that they can cheaper than anyone else.

Don't get me started on their optional health plans. They were great. The only fault that I could find with them, if it can be called a fault, is that they exposed the actual costs of health care to the associate, and then gave them the option of not buying in.

Awful sweet of them to assist their workers in getting on the dole rather than paying them a living wage. Not that the problem is that they are insured against destitution and starvation, but rather we enable companies to pay people a minimum wage that is impossible to live on.

Notice you didn't mention Wal-Mart taking out life insurance polices on it's workers...? Were those news stories all fraudulent or did you just obfuscate them on purpose? Or were you unaware?

I'll keep my politics out of your economics if you keep your economics out of my politics.

So unemployment will be punishable by death. This is so simple a solution that I'm shocked that nobody is proposing it.

This HAS to be Trolling. If not, please exit the gene pool immediately, you're fouling the water.

Why be afraid to see the conclusions of your beliefs freemarketeers?

Not even going to dignify that with an answer.

By posting yet not posting an answer says everything.

Oh, do shut up. How would this 'death penalty' be enforced without a State?

Wow. Ok, so you are a "market fundamentalist"? I see the light now.

You believe that a Market can exist without a State. Good luck with that.

To believe such things you're already showing pure immunity from facts so I don't know if anything can be said. If I think you could be swayed from your dogma into the realm of reality I'd ask for an example of where this has ever happened or how it could ever happen but I know that that would be fruitless. If you'd even considered the construction of such a system you'd realize it to be impossible so once again, I guess we are at an impasse; unless you have some ground-breaking revelation or insight into philosophy, etc that would make this possible. If so, please don't dally in posting it here.

I'll keep my politics out of your economics if you keep your economics out of my politics.

When I was a younger man, and new to the union world, I used to eat this crap up. Then my wife applied for a job there, just to piss me off. She had a BS in Biology at the time and even with the low wages (not minimum, BTW) for a cashier; to this day she will tell you that it was the best job she has ever had. She worked at Wal-Mart for four years as a cashier, for a Vet clinic for seven years as a vet assistant, and five years at Proctor & Gamble as a lab tech in their microbiology lab testing the anti-microbial effects of both P&G products as well as competitors. The stories that she would tell me honestly shocked me. Wal-Mart would go out of their way to improve the lives of their 'associates' in ways that I've never even heard of another employer doing. For example, what my wife earned wouldn't have supported a single mother, and there were several that worked as cashiers at the Wal-Mart that she worked at. The corporate office would sponser 'meetings' with the part-time & low wage employees to inform them of state and federal grants & programs that they might be eligible for, and would provide for the forms and some legal help to apply. This is exactly why there are twice as many working poor who receive state and federal benefits such as welfare or food stamps at Wal-Mart than Target or KMart. Granted, that might cost Wal-Mart next to nothing to help apply, rather than just raise their wages, but it's not something that they have to do, and even informing someone that external help might be available is more than half the trouble.

They would do other, less noble, things as well for their 'associates', such as have regular 'pep rallies' to improve moral. As well as a (voluntary) daily exercise routine, intended to stretch out the legs of those who stand all day for a living, preventing chronic stress health problems later. And no, they didn't save enough from the health care plan doing this to pay for the costs of having the manager and 20+ employees do this for 7 minutes each start of shift.

They also provided for a discount for direct family members, and a card for said family members. Lots of retail chains give the employee a token discount during and after their shift, but who gives the spouse a discount card for 10% discount on everything in the store, all of the time and honors coupons and sales while doing so? The only thing that I bought there in those four years that was not covered by that discount card was milk. But baby formula was.

So anymore I tend to get a bit sideways when I see tis kind of anti Wal-MArt propoganda being presented without citations as if they were commonly accepted facts. I've been a member of a union for nigh on 20 years now, and Wal-Mart has done more for my family than you can ever know; and that goes beyond what Wal-Mart does for everyone by the simple act of trying to sell everything that they can cheaper than anyone else.

Don't get me started on their optional health plans. They were great. The only fault that I could find with them, if it can be called a fault, is that they exposed the actual costs of health care to the associate, and then gave them the option of not buying in.

I am very glad that it has worked out for you. I am not saying that all Wal-Mart stores are ordered to be living hell for their employees, but they can (or can't) be. That is a fault of a hierarchical profit system.

Let me ask you this: is slavery, at it's very premise, an evil institution? I would hope you say yes. Yet, there were good people who were slave owners (also you would have to guarantee living conditions for your slaves if you wanted them to work.) Some slave owners treated their slaves well. Some did not. But do the good slave owners, regardless of whether or not they were in the majority, justify the existence of a slavery institution? I believe the corporate institution is obviously a step up from slavery, but I believe the same rules apply, most of us just have not realized it yet.

You believe that a Market can exist without a State. Good luck with that.

To believe such things you're already showing pure immunity from facts so I don't know if anything can be said. If I think you could be swayed from your dogma into the realm of reality I'd ask for an example of where this has ever happened or how it could ever happen but I know that that would be fruitless. If you'd even considered the construction of such a system you'd realize it to be impossible so once again, I guess we are at an impasse; unless you have some ground-breaking revelation or insight into philosophy, etc that would make this possible. If so, please don't dally in posting it here.

The market is the sum total of all voluntary human actions. By definition it exists outside of, and one might even say in spite of, the State.

I am not saying that all Wal-Mart stores are ordered to be living hell for their employees, but they can (or can't) be. That is a fault of a hierarchical profit system.

Maybe the corporate structure is inheriently flawed, as it's certainly amoral, but that isn't the implication of your statements. Whether you intended it to mean it or not, your words implicated Wal-Mart as some kind of corporate criminal. Which is an opinion that I encounter often within the union culture. I never see those people shopping at wal-mart, but I've seen many of my union brothers who wouldn't raise their voices in support of my position shopping there. I am offended by this kind of propoganda, in part, because I now understand that I was a victim of it. And so are you. I would imagine that, considering your youth, this is an opinion that you have picked up from either family or peers. Well, they are victims too. The truth shall set you free.

Quote

Let me ask you this: is slavery, at it's very premise, an evil institution?

The terms 'good' and 'evil' are very subjective, but I'll hazard miscommunications and say, yes.

Quote

I would hope you say yes. Yet, there were good people who were slave owners (also you would have to guarantee living conditions for your slaves if you wanted them to work.) Some slave owners treated their slaves well. Some did not. But do the good slave owners, regardless of whether or not they were in the majority, justify the existence of a slavery institution? I believe the corporate institution is obviously a step up from slavery, but I believe the same rules apply, most of us just have not realized it yet.

The corporate institution isn't rationally comparable to the systemic subjigation of an entire race/culture/religion of people over the course of generations. Just trying to make this comparision drops your credibility about three points in my opinion. I shouldn't even have to support that position. Such a statement is comparable to violating Godwin's Law, as anyone who trys to play that card loses the argument by default.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

The corporate institution isn't rationally comparable to the systemic subjigation of an entire race/culture/religion of people over the course of generations. Just trying to make this comparision drops your credibility about three points in my opinion. I shouldn't even have to support that position. Such a statement is comparable to violating Godwin's Law, as anyone who trys to play that card loses the argument by default.